Quality control and beta testing

Part of the problem in buying an instrument or system or writing an exam is the beta testing and quality control.

Remember the OMNI -- the quality was suspect along with the results.

The Topcon guppy had some mechanical problems but was cheap and the Japanese
seemed to be very responsive. They have such a large user base -- there was plenty
of feedback for future improvement.

The Leica NOVA looks great, but how many users (beta testers) do they have for an
expensive piece of equipment?

Zeiss - equipment was so simple that you couldn't figure what to ask for in future models.

Sokkia has a large user base and got good feedback for future development.

Kern -- probably the dumbest sales slogan ever. "The best is yet to come."
So their users bought very little because they waited for the best to come instrument.

Remember the CFEDS, I saw a bunch of known experts in the land surveying field
ready to put another license on the wall or feather in their cap. The first exam was riddled
with errors. The problem is there was no or insufficient beta testing. Many
CEU speakers at the state seminars say the wrong thing and nobody sees any
value in correcting the speaker.

Several of the examinations for land surveying in Texas have had errors.
It used to be one person wrote the analytical exam. We had a board member
who knew nothing about proportioning. Another board member incorrectly
divided tracts according to PLS or BLM rules instead of division according to
area.